Arming Ukraine

Morgan Wright5 said:I suspect it almost doesn't matter which aircraft we ended up purchasing. Honestly, none of the options on the table would have integrated seamlessly into our current framework anyway. It felt more like we had to build the entire infrastructure from the ground up first, and then select a plane that actually fit that newly designed system.

The Rafale features a twin-engine configuration, which provides a much-needed safety margin against engine failure; I’d say it was quite a prudent investment.

I’m hoping NATO actually followed through on delivering that set of Barrett M82 rifles.
Anti-tank weaponry is absolutely critical right now.
It completely guts the enemy's morale.

Ryan Morales4 said:I’m hoping NATO actually followed through on delivering that set of Barrett M82 rifles.
Anti-tank weaponry is absolutely critical right now.
It completely guts the enemy's morale.

I mean, as if anyone would actually try to go up against heavy armor with a Barrett right now. It’s clearly meant for much more serious targets than that.

Morgan Wright5 said:I mean, as if anyone would actually try to go up against heavy armor with a Barrett right now. It’s clearly meant for much more serious targets than that.

A tank isn't going to be pierced, though you might manage some damage from the rear. But an M903 slap? That can punch through over 30mm of armor at 500 meters. 😁
Those transport vehicles? Sure, maybe not head-on, but from the side or the rear... they're toast. Besides, Russian armored vehicles usually have pretty thin plating because they're designed to be amphibious. But yeah, I suppose a dedicated sniper rifle would be better.

Morgan Wright5 said:I mean, as if anyone would actually try to go up against heavy armor with a Barrett right now. It’s clearly meant for much more serious targets than that.

Fine.
But it’s still useful for urban combat..
It can be used to tear apart the Russian logistics and infrastructure..
I’m not expecting entire convoys to go up in flames, but I would love to see every third Russian tank get absolutely wrecked...That would be beautiful.

The Czech Republic has become the first NATO member to deliver tanks to Ukraine. 👍
Honestly, I think we’ve reached a point where there are no longer any real limits on weapons deliveries.
Over in Germany, they’re currently debating sending over 100 armored vehicles; word is they've already started the inspection process, because you know how it goes—you can't get anything moving with the Germans without a rigorous technical inspection and a specific manufacturer's plate.

Best regards,

I don't see the point in focusing on armor...
That kind of thing requires fuel resources that we are rapidly running out of...
It would be far more important to deliver mobile air defense systems and anti-tank weaponry instead.
That is where the priority should be.

Ryan Morales4 said:I don't see the point in focusing on armor...
That kind of thing requires fuel resources that we are rapidly running out of...
It would be far more important to deliver mobile air defense systems and anti-tank weaponry instead.
That is where the priority should be.

Word on the street—according to sources close to the front lines—is that they actually have plenty of anti-tank weapons, and their air defense coverage is surprisingly solid too. What they are truly starving for is offensive capability, and you can't pull off an offensive without armored vehicles.
Best,

Ryan Morales4 said:I don't see the point in focusing on armor...
That kind of thing requires fuel resources that we are rapidly running out of...
It would be far more important to deliver mobile air defense systems and anti-tank weaponry instead.
That is where the priority should be.

I agree that's the main thing, but this stuff will still come in handy.

Ryan Morales4 said:I don't see the point in focusing on armor...
That kind of thing requires fuel resources that we are rapidly running out of...
It would be far more important to deliver mobile air defense systems and anti-tank weaponry instead.
That is where the priority should be.

Well, I suppose you could argue a tank is essentially just a mobile anti-tank platform itself.

Morgan Wright5 said:Well, I suppose you could argue a tank is essentially just a mobile anti-tank platform itself.

Exactly! And let's be honest—a tank is an incredible weapon if you actually know how to wield it properly... which is to say, if you don't operate it with the sheer incompetence we've seen from the Russians lately.
Best regards,

+ 16 MQ-9 Reapers sent over to

Melissa Bailey5 said:+ 16 MQ-9 Reapers sent over to

Why not just send a few more Bayraktars to take out that bridge connecting Crimea and Russia?

casualtiger2 said:Why not just send a few more Bayraktars to take out that bridge connecting Crimea and Russia?

That wouldn't even matter. We need something much bigger.

I honestly think we'll see it happen one day.

casualtiger2 said:Why not just send a few more Bayraktars to take out that bridge connecting Crimea and Russia?

Not going to happen. Those bombs just aren't heavy enough. I remember back when they hit that bridge between the transport ships near Savannah—it was hit by much heavier ordnance and stayed functional enough to use. Sure, there were potholes in the asphalt, but you could still drive through it if you treated it like a slalom course. Eventually, though, they just mined the whole thing.

Look, tanks and APCs are coming in just fine. Maybe they aren't the best choice if you're planning on charging headlong into a meat grinder without cover, but APCs serve a vital purpose—getting troops quickly to the front lines and providing some much-needed long-range support once they arrive. That’s exactly what they're built for, right? Yet, for some reason, the Russians seem obsessed with pushing them straight into the thick of it—even deep into urban centers. It's baffling. I mean, at the very least, you get some protection from small arms fire and shrapnel while you're hauling personnel and gear toward the line. Why throw away that advantage?

The EU wants to drop another 500 million euros on weapons for Ukraine.

So, Charles Michel gave the green light back on April 7th for this proposal to release an extra 500 million euros to help Ukraine get more arms
.
On top of that, I guess Canada is planning to step up too, offering Ukraine up to a billion dollars in new loans through the International Monetary Fund while also setting aside another 500 million dollars in military aid, according to what the Canadian government put out on April 7th
.

Andrew Booth29 said:Not going to happen. Those bombs just aren't heavy enough. I remember back when they hit that bridge between the transport ships near Savannah—it was hit by much heavier ordnance and stayed functional enough to use. Sure, there were potholes in the asphalt, but you could still drive through it if you treated it like a slalom course. Eventually, though, they just mined the whole thing.

Except that bridge between the Midwest and Pittsburgh is made of steel.

Kate Lewis3 said:Except that bridge between the Midwest and Pittsburgh is made of steel.

Regardless—those Bayraktar bombs are basically just 120mm mini-grenades. It’s a risky move because I assume the defenses there are solid; it's a massive bridge, after all. Honestly, I don't think we'll be seeing much of that.

The bridge is likely heavily defended—it's basically the single most important strategic target the Russians have right now—so why waste expensive Bayraktars on a pure PR stunt?

Then again, if they manage to hit another fuel train like they did back in the early days over in Crimea, that’s a whole different story. 😁